stoat

I understand now. This would be quite useful to help reconstruct the battle when it is over. However, if a feature is included that lets you view the battle as one movie when it is over, this would be unnecessary.

:confused:

Yes, but my point was, aside from the Maxim, you don't actually push the weapons, and you have no gun shield.

That would be nice to see. If a tank explodes, it would be nice to know all five (or so) men are dead, and not just a set percentage of them.

Planes, I don't know, but for ATGs and AFVs as well as infantry you just "look at map" when the battle is over, select a unit and bring up its info, and click "info/kills". This will tell you how many casualties it caused, mortars, guns and vehicles it destroyed (vehicles by type), and men it captured.

Excluding Maxims, of course.

How do you push a mortar or machine gun? The weapons are broken into pieces and carried.

I always thought that the number of dead was decided after the battle by a formula. So you wouldn't know if a specific casualty is dead or wounded.

I'd say just leave markers for the KIAs, but (AIUI) this is determined by a formula, so wouldn't work. And I admit that stationary or nonexistant wounded would be unrealistic. It was and still is just a thought.

No, not a flag. The same as the "eliminated" marker in CMx1. Or at least similar.

What about a marker for every casualty? They wouldn't have to move, and wouldn't require additional features, but I think it would be a nice touch to have each one represented. A continually thickening line of bodies stretched right up to the muzzle of an MG-42, whose crewmen lie scattered about in and around their foxhole... Just a thought.

Gotta love plasma.

But would all four attack the vehicle? I find it far more likely that one man would attack an AFV and the others would provide cover fire. I think having a two man unit was a nice compromise between a too-large unit, and a one man unit that would not survive more than two minutes.

At least Santa has a fixed date.

Your logic and reasoning have no place here. I completely agree, though.

No, unfortunately it was nothing that good. It was me placing Blitzkreig in WW2 and not WW1, and my being irked at every other German probe being referred to as a Blitz. Maybe I should suck it up and put something together though, huh?

Just look at the pintle-mounted .50 on the M24. Is it even possible to fire that in a forward direction? It was placed there for AA. The .30s were for anti infantry fire.

Page two of this thread. I believe that it had been stated that Blitzkrieg had first been performed in WW1.

I posted about Blitzkreig along time ago, and how it was debateable. I was told to go away. I guess I'm just ahead of the times, eh?

This is partly because the veterans send the new guys out on all the dangerous duties. In this way the green troops become casualties at a much higher rate, and the old men stay together.

American tank gunners in WW2 were trained to test range and aim with the co-ax before firing the main gun. The roof-mounted gun shouldn't be used for aiming or ranging because this was the job of the gunner, not the TC, who fires the roof mount.

Try the same scenario from the other side. Watch what the enemy does to try to take your trenches, and then remember what they did right/wrong next time you come up against trenches.

I forgot Normandy.

Only the best for Uncle Sam's boys. coe: The instances that come to mind are: Hurtgen (aforementioned), the assault on the Seigfreid Line, and much of the campaign in Italy. The results were: Hurtgen-can you call it a victory?, Siegfreid- victory, but a bloody one, and Italy- slow bloody fighting up unitl the end of the war. Any time almost any force goes against a prepared defense like the kind you mentioned, if victory is acheived, it will be at a heavy cost.

Only the best for Uncle Sam's boys.